Matt_dk writes "Move over, Morning Star. Once Canadarm2 helps install the fourth and final set of solar array wings to the International Space Station later this month, the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky, second only to the Moon. The Space Shuttle Discovery is set to deliver the power-generating solar panels and Starboard 6 (S6) truss segment to the ISS on the 125th mission in the Shuttle program, known as STS-119/15A (slated for launch on March 11)."
Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.
No, either way, it's wrong. The heading says, "Second Brightest-Object In the Sky," which is incorrect, because the Sun is the brightest object in the sky and the second-brightest is the Moon.
The summary says, "the brightest object in the night sky," which is incorrect, because that would be the Moon.
I know you're joking, but this is Slashdot, and I expect the jokes to be funny AND measurably correct.
I would say yes because the visible ISS passes are at dawn or dusk. I live in a similarly dense environment and had no problem seeing ISS and the Shuttle the last time it was there (in fact I saw the two orbiting just after disconnection, the Shuttle slightly ahead of the ISS and that was a pretty impressive sight). Just look up which part of the sky the pass will be for you and move away from any local bright lights that might obscure the view.
When I was going to UCF, I had the shit scared out of my by a shuttle landing. Had just moved in to new apartment and bedroom had sliding glass door out to patio. When the shuttle passed overhead, the sonic boom rattled the hell out of it, like someone was trying to come. Being woken up so early (10:30 am) sucks!
This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.
Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.
Okay, but those supernova are long gone so while they were on top back then, they aren't relevant today. You could also make an argument that the flare's apparent brightness only lasts a couple seconds while the ISS is bright for the majority of its traversal. Doesn't change that the flare really is much brighter when it occurs, but on the other hand on a normal night I'm perfectly comfortable saying that Venus is the 2nd brightest object in the sky.
Either way, this is a dramatic increase in the brightness of ISS. On a clear night far away from cities, ISS is easy to see, but also easy to lose in the sea of stars of similar brightness*. To be sure that you'll find it, you have to know roughly when and where it will appear, and then look for the star that moves. If it becomes brighter than Venus, you won't need a schedule or even a dark sky to be able to easily see when it passes over.
* Okay WP says that its max magnitude is equal to that of Venus, but I've never seen ISS under those conditions then. If the upgraded ISS will only be brighter than Venus at maximum, then maybe it's not that big a change as I'm thinking.
> This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.
Yes it does. It does already. You're comparing flare mags with standard mags. The ISS _does_ flare, and when it does it is much brighter than Iridium. Sadly, Mike Tyrrell's page is gone, but there was a collection of images there.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday March 09 2009, @03:16PM (#27126055)
Move over, Morning Star. Once Canadarm2 helps install the fourth and final set of solar array wings to the International Space Station later this month, the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky, second only to the Moon.
That's no moon. It's the International Space Station.
I keep thinking of the effects of a discarded Coke bottle on those non-technically savvy people in "The Gods Must Be Crazy"...
Perhaps they will select Three Wise Men to go on a pilgrimage toward the bright new star...
I live in a city so the light pollution messes up any chances I have at looking at a starry sky. I have as a child always found it incomprehensible that people said that you couldn't count all the stars because I can surely do it where I live.
Yet there still seem to be a finite number of them, and they are thus countable. Not even enough to have to determine if they are a countable or uncountable infinity.
Even growing up in a small town I didn't really comprehend how many stars there were until we went camping. We were in Dinosaur Provincial Park and once it got dark it was amazing. With almost no nearby light pollution, you can clearly see an arm of the milky way overhead. Even without that arm, there are too many stars to count.
My dad grew up in the middle-of-nowhere, Idaho, and says when he was kid they would watch Sputnik fly across the sky. The high elevation and lack of big city lights make the night sky amazing.
"I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them but they were only satellites. Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?" --Billy Brag "A New England"
Some say Venus is visible during the day (tho' I've not seen it myself).
If the ISS does turn out to be brighter than Venus - which varies in brightness considerably, depending on where in it's orbit it is - relative to earth, then it will be interesting to see if it's visible during daytime passes, too.
Isn't it ironic that the parts of the ISS that are meant to absorb as much sunlight as they can, actually reflect enough of it to make the ISS the seconds brightest object in the sky:P
Solar panels are fairly dark. It's just that the night sky background is *really* dark. For comparison, the Moon has an albedo (fraction of light reflected) of 0.12. That's a fairly dark gray for something in normal realms of experience -- but a bright white against the night sky. Shine enough light on something with a dark background, and it will look bright.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt.45 and a.38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday March 09 2009, @03:51PM (#27126565)
Are you nuts? Less than a minute googling 'history of the moon' will give you hundreds of references to it pre 1950.
And for the sake of argument, let's say all of those references were fabricated by historians. Then how do you explain the tides? Menstrual cycles? Even fish are more likely to bite on certain weeks, and it all has to do with lunar cycles. You don't really think that all of the above is recent to the past 60 years, do you?
2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, the ISS is bright and will be brighter.
This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.
Predictions of the ISS and Iridium flares are provided at http://www.heavens-above.com/ [heavens-above.com]
Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:5, Informative)
Plus, you know, THE SUN. (I know the summary was more specific, but the title was not.)
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:5, Funny)
THE SUN
Flaming ball of fusion, you have thwarted my plans for the last time! You will rue the day!!!
shakes fist angrily at sun
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Burns, is that you?
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:5, Funny)
From the summary:
From your comment:
Last I checked, and admittedly It's been almost 12 hours, the sun isn't visible in the sky at night...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, either way, it's wrong. The heading says, "Second Brightest-Object In the Sky," which is incorrect, because the Sun is the brightest object in the sky and the second-brightest is the Moon.
The summary says, "the brightest object in the night sky," which is incorrect, because that would be the Moon.
I know you're joking, but this is Slashdot, and I expect the jokes to be funny AND measurably correct.
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was going to UCF, I had the shit scared out of my by a shuttle landing. Had just moved in to new apartment and bedroom had sliding glass door out to patio. When the shuttle passed overhead, the sonic boom rattled the hell out of it, like someone was trying to come. Being woken up so early (10:30 am) sucks!
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:5, Funny)
...trying to come in.
Darn you non-editable replies.
Darn you to HECK!
Parent
Re:Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
This must mean Rupert Murdock is some sort of universal force, as he binds the Sun to the Sky...
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the ISS is bright and will be brighter.
This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.
Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.
Okay, but those supernova are long gone so while they were on top back then, they aren't relevant today. You could also make an argument that the flare's apparent brightness only lasts a couple seconds while the ISS is bright for the majority of its traversal. Doesn't change that the flare really is much brighter when it occurs, but on the other hand on a normal night I'm perfectly comfortable saying that Venus is the 2nd brightest object in the sky.
Either way, this is a dramatic increase in the brightness of ISS. On a clear night far away from cities, ISS is easy to see, but also easy to lose in the sea of stars of similar brightness*. To be sure that you'll find it, you have to know roughly when and where it will appear, and then look for the star that moves. If it becomes brighter than Venus, you won't need a schedule or even a dark sky to be able to easily see when it passes over.
* Okay WP says that its max magnitude is equal to that of Venus, but I've never seen ISS under those conditions then. If the upgraded ISS will only be brighter than Venus at maximum, then maybe it's not that big a change as I'm thinking.
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:5, Insightful)
> This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.
Yes it does. It does already. You're comparing flare mags with standard mags. The ISS _does_ flare, and when it does it is much brighter than Iridium. Sadly, Mike Tyrrell's page is gone, but there was a collection of images there.
Maury
Parent
Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, Mike Tyrrell's page is gone
Is this [astrospider.com] not his site?
Parent
He's Headed to That Small Moon Over There (Score:5, Funny)
Move over, Morning Star. Once Canadarm2 helps install the fourth and final set of solar array wings to the International Space Station later this month, the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky, second only to the Moon.
That's no moon. It's the International Space Station.
Re:He's Headed to That Small Moon Over There (Score:4, Funny)
i find your lack of wit... disturbing
Parent
Gods Must Be Crazy? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps they will select Three Wise Men to go on a pilgrimage toward the bright new star...
Re:Gods Must Be Crazy? (Score:4, Funny)
If you can't reach it, build a religion around it.
Parent
It doesn't matter for me (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in a city so the light pollution messes up any chances I have at looking at a starry sky. I have as a child always found it incomprehensible that people said that you couldn't count all the stars because I can surely do it where I live.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
you couldn't count all the stars
there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.
Re:It doesn't matter for me (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It doesn't matter for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Even growing up in a small town I didn't really comprehend how many stars there were until we went camping. We were in Dinosaur Provincial Park and once it got dark it was amazing. With almost no nearby light pollution, you can clearly see an arm of the milky way overhead. Even without that arm, there are too many stars to count.
Parent
Re:It doesn't matter for me (Score:5, Funny)
"However, I live in the flight path of a nearby airport. How can I tell the difference between ISS, and a passing plane?"
If you fire a stinger at it and it hits, it's most certainly a plain. If it misses, it's probably the ISS.
Works for me.
Parent
Darkness (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of a song... (Score:2)
"I saw two shooting stars last night,
I wished on them but they were only satellites.
Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?"
--Billy Brag "A New England"
Re:Reminds me of a song... (Score:5, Funny)
First star I see tonight,
I wish I may, I wish I might,
Ah crap, it's a satellite.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Depends on the wish.
"I wish I could triangulate my position on the planet surface to within 3 meters with only a handheld telemetry device."
"I wish for a mass extinction of species on the planet and a sudden solution to global warming."
bright enough to see in daylight? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the ISS does turn out to be brighter than Venus - which varies in brightness considerably, depending on where in it's orbit it is - relative to earth, then it will be interesting to see if it's visible during daytime passes, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only problem is that ISS isn't stationary, so you have to know where to look and at the right time as well!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which country? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone know which country the Canadarm2 is from? /ducks
Re:Which country? (Score:5, Funny)
Like most things in Canada.
Signed, a proud Canadian.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean like the small Canada flags that people buy on july 1st?
How ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it ironic that the parts of the ISS that are meant to absorb as much sunlight as they can, actually reflect enough of it to make the ISS the seconds brightest object in the sky:P
Re:How ironic (Score:4, Funny)
Who would've thought, it figures...
Parent
Re:How ironic (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky,
Is the sun so obvious that they don't even see it?
Ummm... Since when is the sun in the *night* sky??
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
How often do you see the sun in the night sky?
Re:Second only to the Moon? (Score:5, Funny)
He lives in Alaska, you insensitive clod!
Parent
The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:5, Funny)
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Parent
Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Well this explains why they shot JFK.
But what I don't understand is why there are phases of the moon. Is that a bug in the programming?
Parent
Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:4, Funny)
Are you nuts? Less than a minute googling 'history of the moon' will give you hundreds of references to it pre 1950.
And for the sake of argument, let's say all of those references were fabricated by historians. Then how do you explain the tides? Menstrual cycles? Even fish are more likely to bite on certain weeks, and it all has to do with lunar cycles. You don't really think that all of the above is recent to the past 60 years, do you?
Parent
Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:5, Funny)
Either someone just got trolled, or I just got reverse-trolled.
It's getting harder and harder to tell these days.
Parent
Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:5, Funny)
Are you nuts? Less than a minute googling 'history of the moon' will give you hundreds of references to it pre 1950.
uh the internet wasnt around in 1950 genius
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
History is a lie. The planet wasn't here sixty years ago.
Ha! Stick that in your tinfoil hat and... smoke... it... [metaphor mixture fail: abort, retry, ignore?] [[ignore]]
Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Moon? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, in order to combat global warming, they intend to turn off the sun.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)